Photo from Unsplash | Gabrielle Henderson
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
AT A GLANCE:
In Azurin, Jr. v. Chua (G.R. No. 259662, April 23, 2025), the Supreme Court ruled that while written notice is generally required before a co-owner sells their share, it is not necessary if the other co-owners already had actual knowledge of the sale and failed to redeem the property within 30 days.
FACTS:
- The instant petition arose from a complaint for legal redemption over Lot 236-A (subject property), originally part of Lot 236 registered under the name of spouses Flaviano Azurin and Maxima Marcelino.
- When Azurin and Marecelino died intestate, the subject property was transferred and registered solely to Antonio, Sr. who subsequently transferred the same to his sons Antonio Jr., Rafael, and Larry Azurin (collectively Antonio, Jr. et al).
- Upon discovery of the adjudication by Antonio, Sr., his siblings, Adelaida, Jose, and Juliet filed a complaint for recovery of property with nullity of documents and certificate of titles against Antonio, Jr. et al.
- From this, Adelaida was judicially declared owner of a one-fourth share of Lot 236. Later, Adelaida sold the lot to respondent Carlito Chua on November 25, 2005. The property was subsequently subdivided, and Lot 236-A was segregated and titled under Chua’s name on January 27, 2010.
- Afterwards, Carlito filed a verified complaint for recovery of possession with damages against Antonio, Jr. et al., which was then affirmed by the RTC of Aparri, Cagayan on June 2, 2014.
- Aggrieved, on March 28, 2016, Antonio, Jr. and Rafael filed a complaint for legal redemption with damages against Carlito with the CA.
- However, the CA denied this petition, holding that Antonio, Jr. and Rafael failed to redeem the property within the 30-day statutory period as the case for legal redemption was filed more than 15 years after the sale.
- The CA further found that t Antonio, Jr. and Rafael failed to prove their claim that they demanded to redeem Adelaida’s share from Carlito and that the latter refused.
- Finally, the CA ruled that, despite the petitioner’s insistence on needing written notice, they already had actual knowledge of the sale given that they were in possession of Lot 236.
ISSUES:
- W/N petitioners had sufficient knowledge of the sale of the co-owned property since they are in possession of the same.
- W/N petitioners’ right of legal redemption is already barred by the statute of limitations.
The Supreme Court decides:
YES, petitioners had sufficient knowledge of the sale of the co-owned property since they are in possession of the same.
YES, petitioners’ right of legal redemption is already barred by the statute of limitations
- Petitioners insist that the 30-day period had not begun to run against them because they were not given written notice of the sale between Adelaida and the respondent.
- In response, the Court revisited the case of Alonzo v. Intermediate Appellate Court, wherein the Court allowed an exception to the strict requirement of written notice due to the presence of the following: “(1) peculiar circumstances that gave the co-owners sufficient knowledge of the sale and its particulars; and (2) laches on the part of the redemptioners.”
- In the case at bar, the Court found that there are peculiar circumstances that show that petitioners had sufficient knowledge of the sale and its particulars and that there is laches on their part.
- Specifically, the Court emphasized that Lot 236 was duly surveyed for the segregation of the subject property at the time that the petitioners were in actual possession of the property. Thus, the Court asserted that the petitioners would have known about the survey and, consequently, would have had actual notice prior to January 27, 2010.
- Furthermore, the Court held that petitioners had actual notice of the sale when respondent filed an action for recovery of possession with damages against them. Petitioners could have exercised their right to redeem within a reasonable period from their receipt of this complaint, yet they failed to do so.
- Ultimately, the Court found that petitioners had actual knowledge of the sale, at the latest, on January 27, 2010. However, they filed the complaint for legal redemption with damages only on March 28, 2016, or 6 years and 2 months after actual notice. Hence, laches has set in against them.
- Accordingly, in line with the ruling in Alonzo, the Court found that it, too, must yield to equity in the instant case.
ACCORDINGLY, the Petition is DENIED. The October 12, 2020 Decision and February 14, 2022 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. CV No. 112336 are AFFIRMED.
Source:
- SC Clarifies Co-Owners’ Right to Redeem: Actual Knowledge of Sale Can Replace Written Notice
- Antonio, Jr. and Rafael Azurin Vs. Carlito Chua (G.R. No. 259662 | April 23, 2025)
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding legal services, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/ 09175772207/ 09778050020.
All rights reserved.